Apparently, though unproven, at 20:49 on Wednesday 18 August 2010, Joerg Schilling did opine thusly:
> > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of > > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with > > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in > > any way--it worked okay. > > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to > the BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? You appear to not fully understand the licenses. Remember that the Linux kernel is GPL-2 and it's modules are considered derivative works. The GPL-2 license demands that all derivative works be either GPL-2 licensed or 100% compatible with the GPL-2. ZFS is licensed CCDL which although free and liberal, is not GPL-2 compatible. It is BSD-compatible which is why the BSDs can (and some do) ship it. The ZFS license is thus not a mere hurdle, it is an un-overcomeable barrier in it's current form. If Oracle were to re-license it then the problem could be solved, but few in this game hold any hope of that ever happening. But all of this has been hashed to death many many many times here and in other places - to the point where it is now conclusive. Google will reveal the entire discussion in all it's painful detail. Start with lkml. Let's not rehash it here again. Please, I beg of you. Let us not do that. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
